Do you have a photograph memory? I know you’ve been wrong in the past, are you being to sensitive yes especially since I specifically stated I wasn’t sure and only suggested you double check.
Drop Tanks... Back From the Dead?
- Thread starter Ol'Weedy
- Start date
Drop tank 100 dt fuel: ship tonnage cost 4dt costs 2mcr tank cost 2.5 mcr (same cost every time dropped replacement availability may be limited)
Cargo/fuel container100 dt fuel: ship tonnage cost 5dt cost .5 mcr (can be used as cargo if the extra range is not needed)
So yes it’s cheaper
Remember you still have to count the drop tank for jump tonnage and maneuver if you don’t drop it but it doesn’t count for things like Hard Points
Last edited:
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
So, side question with a Mongoose 2e focus. How long does it take to drain the drop tanks prior to jump? I’m half imagining it would be a six minute round, but I’m not sure.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
Cosmic Mongoose
ONLY if you drop it is it cheaper. Which is the whole point, you don't drop it. A freighter large enough that it goes high port to high port doesn't land and has no need to skim so it is cheaper. Sure it has fewer potential hard points but it is a freighter not a warship, how many 1000 ton freighters have 10 hard points (dropped to 9 with the drop tank). If you do drop it your manoeuvre goes up and jump goes away.
In case of piracy the drop tank is destroyed and the ship can be looted but not jumped elsewhere unless the pirates have a jump tug or a replacement tank on hand.
I just checked the Adventure Class ships book for 1000 ton freighters and only the ones explicitly expecting combat have the maximum number of hard points and the ships this is proposed for wouldn't miss the hard points they aren't using anyhow.
You seem to be hung up on the drop in drop tank but even the classic Gazelle mostly does not drop its tank. The ships using this would NOT drop the tanks without a good reason (outrunning a 1g Raider for example by doing 1.1111g). Since this would be intended for safe areas combat capability is a non issue.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
Cosmic Mongoose
I would assume the same time as to drain an internal tank as it is used for the same purposes.
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
Yes, I’m sure, but I don’t know that either.
I’m out and about and can’t dig into it at the moment.Edit: The Starship Operator’s Manual says this:
So, really, really fast. Faster than I suspect hydrogen coils actually be used, so not helpful. I’ll run with the assumption that a six-minute space combat turn is the time it takes to pump the tons and tons of hydrogen.
Last edited:
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
1. I believe I've gone through most possible hull options.
2. I don't see any problem with streamlining the drop tanks, for an extra twenty percent premium.
3. From a commercial point of view, substituting drop tanks for fuel tanks is an attractive proposition, since you half the default cost, and don't need the potential hardpoints.
4. Also, you don't have to power them, since the sucking can all be done from the primary hull.
5. Harder case to make for an actual starwarship.
6. Also, automatically destroyed with the loss of ten percent of hull points of the primary hull.
2. I don't see any problem with streamlining the drop tanks, for an extra twenty percent premium.
3. From a commercial point of view, substituting drop tanks for fuel tanks is an attractive proposition, since you half the default cost, and don't need the potential hardpoints.
4. Also, you don't have to power them, since the sucking can all be done from the primary hull.
5. Harder case to make for an actual starwarship.
6. Also, automatically destroyed with the loss of ten percent of hull points of the primary hull.
The core issue with drop tanks is that if you don't put restrictions on them (always destroyed, hard to re-install) that make them not particularly useful in the first place, they will (as the first mentions in CT imply) significantly change how merchant ships are constructed and how trade flows. The number one restriction on high jump freighters is loss of cargo space to "empty fuel tanks".
If it's possible to detach and unattach drop tanks (basically a special use application of breakaway hull) efficiently, then that will rapidly become the normal way of building freighters. And high jump cargo shipment will become dramatically more cost effective. Yes, there would still be tramps and small feeder traders to the places not worth the space trade equivalent of a container ship, but a lot would change.
It's likely X-boat design would include such too, especially since they already have tenders used to recovering ships.
Tbh, I'd think the Gazelle would be about the last type of ship that would find them useful except as a cheap proof of concept design
If it's possible to detach and unattach drop tanks (basically a special use application of breakaway hull) efficiently, then that will rapidly become the normal way of building freighters. And high jump cargo shipment will become dramatically more cost effective. Yes, there would still be tramps and small feeder traders to the places not worth the space trade equivalent of a container ship, but a lot would change.
It's likely X-boat design would include such too, especially since they already have tenders used to recovering ships.
Tbh, I'd think the Gazelle would be about the last type of ship that would find them useful except as a cheap proof of concept design
Fluffy Bunny Feet
Cosmic Mongoose
You can get the detach and attach simplified by attaching them to a minimal breakaway hull. I did the same in a tug design. In that case the Tug section has the propulsion and most of the power and other systems. The Jump Net section had minimal power + fuel (for the mining outpost replacing tanker visits), a computer and virtual crew, no bridge and minimal power. The tug would drop off a empty J=Net unit and pick up a full one then drop the full one to be unloaded at the processing facility and pick up an empty. Trade off the pilot each run so you don't burn them out, the tug is in near constant motion making money.
Use the same system with the Drop tank attached instead of a J-Net. Raises the price somewhat, maybe too much to be cost effective.
One advantage of a freighter with the drop tank is at "end of life" for the J-Drive it can become a reasonably efficient interplanetary freighter just by finally dropping the tank. Of course you can do the same by storing your jump fuel in mountable fuel tanks and at "end of life" remove them increasing your cargo space for interplanetary uses.
In that case you are reducing your jump capacity because you are bringing the extra fuel with you. You'd have to have a use case that explains why having the necessary extra fixtures on the ships and the massive drop tanks needed outweighs just having the ship carry that much more fuel all the time. Either these sorts of raids are very uncommon, so you might have a few specialty ships for them, or they are commonplace, in which case just carrying the fuel capacity seems to make the most sense, because keeping the drop tanks in supply at the point of attack would be a challenge.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
I think what they are saying is, use the drop tanks to jump into a system. (dropping them before jump) That way, you do not use any of your internally stored fuel. So, when you arrive at the new system, you still have a full tank of internal fuel and can jump again whenever you wish without refueling. This does not reduce jump capacity.
mortal
Mongoose
Yes! “High guard” describes the position of warships standing guard over other ships skimming the gas giant below, which takes time and leave the skimming ships vulnerable to attacks.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Right, which you don't need to do if you gas tank is already full.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Or, rifting.
To the Islands Cluster, and beyond!
To the Islands Cluster, and beyond!
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
In theory you could armour them, and/or utilize primitive hull technology.
However, what kind effect that would have on their function is unknown.
Though, I think you're confined to acceleration factor/three, while the primitive hulled drop tanks are attached.
However, what kind effect that would have on their function is unknown.
Though, I think you're confined to acceleration factor/three, while the primitive hulled drop tanks are attached.
If you don’t drop it than while your hull might be a little cheaper your still wasting space if your not jumping that far unless you intend to have all your jump fuel in the drop tanks in which case the whole ideal of making them streamlined breaks the setting. Drop tanks were intended to be a military option not a way to cheat the costs of building ships, what you do IYTU is up to you but this is definitely a rules lawyer kind of situation.
boggo2300
Cosmic Mongoose
Honestly I can't think of a use case for L-HYD tanks on a freighter, Military vessels sure, still maybe not the best idea, but having the ability to make a big jump like the CT Gazelle could at least come in useful, but for freighters or really any commercial ship, to me it doesn't make any sense.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
The empty fuel tank going through jump could be filled with cargo.
A 1000t jump 3 freighter (yes such things are canonical) could be built with the 30% as a larger cargo hold.
It is supplied with drop tanks at every world it jumps to so it never needs to carry empty jump fuel tanks through jump space.
300 extra tons of freight, or better yet 300t of extra speculative goods.
A 1000t jump 3 freighter (yes such things are canonical) could be built with the 30% as a larger cargo hold.
It is supplied with drop tanks at every world it jumps to so it never needs to carry empty jump fuel tanks through jump space.
300 extra tons of freight, or better yet 300t of extra speculative goods.
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
Or the corporate pumping jump station with pricy fuel for independents.
